A phase 2, open-label study of brentuximab vedotin in patients with CD30-expressing solid tumors.

Purpose Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate used in the treatment of several types of lymphomas. Expression of the target antigen has also been reported on a variety of malignant tumors of nonlymphoid origin. This phase 2, open-label study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of BV in patients with CD30-expressing nonlymphomatous malignancies. Methods Patients were dosed with 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg BV once every three weeks. Antitumor activity was assessed at Cycles 2, 4, and every 4 cycles thereafter. Patients with stable disease or better were eligible to continue treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or study closure. Results Of the 2693 patients screened, 3.8% had solid tumors with CD30 expression and 63 eligible patients with solid tumors enrolled in this study. The most common CD30 positive solid tumors were testicular cancer and mesothelioma. Both subtypes had more than one patient with an objective response. The median duration of BV exposure was 6.1 weeks. The disease control rate, defined as achieving stable disease or better at any point during the study, was 55%. The objective response rate was 11%, with a median duration of response of 2.92 months. The most common adverse events reported were fatigue (57%), nausea (33%), and decreased appetite (32%). Conclusion The safety profile of BV in patients with solid tumors was similar to the known safety profile of BV. In solid tumors, BV had modest activity as a single agent, which was similar to other second-line treatments already available to patients.

A phase I, open-label, two-stage study to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the oral AKT inhibitor GSK2141795 in patients with solid tumors.

Background We sought to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and schedule of GSK2141795, an oral pan-AKT kinase inhibitor. Patients and Methods Patients with solid tumors were enrolled in the dose-escalation phase. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis after a single dose (Cycle 0) informed dose escalation using accelerated dose titration. Once one grade 2 toxicity or dose-limiting toxicity was observed in Cycle 1, the accelerated dose titration was terminated and a 3 + 3 dose escalation was started. Continuous daily dosing was evaluated along with two intermittent regimens (7 days on/7 days off and 3 times per week). In the expansion phase at RP2D, patients with endometrial or prostate cancer, as well as those with select tumor types with a PIK3CA mutation, AKT mutation or PTEN loss, were enrolled. Patients were evaluated for adverse events (AEs), PK parameters, blood glucose and insulin levels, and tumor response. Results The RP2D of GSK2141795 for once-daily dosing is 75 mg. The most common (>10%) treatment-related AEs included diarrhea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Most AEs were low grade. The frequency of hyperglycemia increased with dose; however, at the RP2D, grade 3 hyperglycemia was only reported in 4% of patients and no grade 4 events were observed. PK characteristics were favorable, with a prolonged half-life and low peak-to-trough ratio. There were two partial responses at the RP2D in patients with either a PIK3CA mutation or PTEN loss. Conclusion GSK2141795 was safe and well-tolerated, with clinical activity seen as monotherapy at the RP2D of 75 mg daily. NCT00920257.

Outcomes of patients ≥65 years old with advanced cancer treated on phase I trials at MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER.

Patients ≥65 years with cancer remain underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly in phase I clinical trials. We analyzed the clinical course of patients ≥65 years treated on phase I clinical trials with particular emphasis on toxicities. We identified 347 consecutive patients ≥65 years with advanced cancer in our phase I clinic from 01/2004-12/2009 and analyzed disease characteristics, toxicities, survival and response. Overall, 251 patients received a targeted agent, of whom 241 (96%) received an investigational, non-FDA-approved drug. Clinical benefit (complete response + partial response + stable disease ≥ 6 months) was noted in 61 patients (18%). Eighty-nine patients (26%) had grade 3/4 toxicity, commonly hematologic, including 6 dose-limiting toxicities and 1 treatment-related death (<0.01%). Median overall survival from first Phase I Clinic visit was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.8-10.6); median time to treatment failure was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.1). Multivariable analyses revealed 4 indicators of lack of clinical benefit (liver metastases, performance status [PS] >1, prior radiation, ≥5 prior treatments; p <0.0001). Patients age 70-79 years had a greater risk of grade 3/4 toxicities when treated with combinations (≥2 drugs) compared to monotherapy (p = 0.006). Predictors of shorter time to treatment failure and overall survival included PS >1, thrombocytosis, >2 metastatic sites, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (p <0.05). Our results suggest that phase I clinical trials are well tolerated in patients ≥65 years. Additionally, we identified risk factors that may facilitate patient selection for clinical trial participation.

A phase I trial of combination trastuzumab, lapatinib, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data indicate that combination HER2-directed and anti-VEGF therapy may bypass resistance to trastuzumab. A phase I trial was performed to assess safety, activity, and correlates. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced, refractory malignancy were enrolled (modified 3 + 3 design with expansions for responding tumor types). Patients received lapatinib daily for 21 days, and bevacizumab and trastuzumab every 3 weeks. Correlates included HER2 extracellular domain levels (ECD) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were treated (median = four prior systemic therapies). The most common related adverse events ≥ grade 2 were diarrhea (n = 33, 35 %) and hypertension (n = 10, 11 %). The recommended phase 2 dose was trastuzumab 6 mg/m(2) (loading = 8 mg/m(2)) and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with lapatinib 1,250 mg daily (full FDA-approved dose of each drug). One patient (1 %) achieved a complete response (CR); eight (9 %), a partial response (PR) (includes breast (n = 7, one of which was HER2 2+ by IHC) and salivary ductal carcinoma (n = 1); and 14 (15 %), stable disease (SD) ≥6 months (total SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR =23 (25 %). All patients with PR/CR received prior trastuzumab +/- lapatinib. SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR rate and time to treatment failure (TTF) correlated with elevated baseline HER2 ECD (N = 75 patients tested) but not with HER2 SNPs. CONCLUSIONS: Combination trastuzumab, lapatinib, and bevacizumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced malignancy.

Dual antiangiogenic inhibition: a phase I dose escalation and expansion trial targeting VEGF-A and VEGFR in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Angiogenesis plays a pivotal role in tumor growth and metastasis. Sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), combined with bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A), would vertically inhibit VEGF/VEGFR signaling. A phase I trial was performed to assess safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and clinical correlates. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were eligible. In cohorts of escalating doses, patients received sorafenib daily for 28 days and bevacizumab every two weeks. Clinical correlates included VEGF polymorphisms. Expansion cohorts of responding tumor types were enrolled. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients were treated, and the MTD was identified as 200 mg twice daily sorafenib and 5 mg/kg bevacizumab every two weeks. Median number of prior therapies was four. Twenty-nine patients (25 %) achieved stable disease ≥6 months; six patients (5 %) achieved a partial response (total SD ≥ 6 months/PR=35 (30 %)). 76 patients (66 %) experienced adverse events of grade 2 or higher, most commonly hand and foot syndrome (n = 27, 24 %) and hypertension (n = 24, 21 %). Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in eight patients (7 %), and 45 patients (39 %) required dose reduction for toxicity. Grade 3 and 4 hypertension was associated with longer time to treatment failure, overall survival, and higher response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Combination sorafenib and bevacizumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors.

Dose-finding study of hepatic arterial infusion of irinotecan-based treatment in patients with advanced cancers metastatic to the liver.

BACKGROUND: Liver metastases are associated with a poor prognosis. We investigated the use of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of irinotecan combination therapy in patients with liver metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed advanced cancer with liver metastases that was refractory to standard therapy were eligible. A standard "3 + 3" phase I study design was used to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Three cohorts were evaluated: HAI of irinotecan with systemic intravenous (IV) (a) bevacizumab, (b) oxaliplatin and bevacizumab, or (c) bevacizumab and cetuximab. RESULTS: From October 2009 through December 2013, 98 patients with various tumor types were enrolled (median age, 62 years, range, 34-85; and median number of prior therapies, 4, range, 1-11). In cohorts A and C, dose escalation continued until the highest dose level-considered the MTD-was reached. In cohort B, dose escalation continued until dose level 3, and dose level 2 was considered the MTD. Rates of grade 3/4 adverse events were as follows: diarrhea, 8 %; fatigue, 4 %; neutropenia, 4 %; thrombocytopenia, 2 %; and skin rash, 2 %. Seventy-seven patients were evaluable for response. Partial response was noted in 5 (6.5 %) patients (neuroendocrine cancer, n = 2; CRC, n = 2; NSCLC, n = 1); and stable disease ≥ 6 months in 17 (22.1 %) patients (CRC, n = 13; breast, n = 1; neuroendocrine, n = 1; NSCLC, n = 1; pancreatic, n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: HAI irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab; oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab; or cetuximab plus bevacizumab was safe and may be a treatment option for selected patients with advanced cancer and liver involvement.

Xilonix, a novel true human antibody targeting the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 alpha, in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were treated as part of a Phase I dose escalation and expansion study evaluating a true human monoclonal antibody targeting IL-1α (Xilonix), which is intended to modulate the malignant phenotype-inhibiting tumor growth, spread and offering relief of symptoms. METHODS: Sixteen NSCLC patients were included. Patients failed a median of 4 chemotherapy regimens, including 10/16 failing anti-EGFR therapy. Disease progression was evaluated using a multi-modal approach: tumor response, patient reported outcomes (EORTC-QLQC30), and lean body mass (LBM). Patients received infusions every 2 or 3 weeks until progression, and were followed 24 months to assess survival. RESULTS: There were no infusion reactions, dose-limiting toxicities, or deaths due to therapy. Albeit not statistically significant, there was a trend in IL-6 (-2.6 ± 18.5 (0.1 [-2.8-2.4]), platelet counts (-11 ± 54 (-4[-36.0-1.0]), CRP (-3.3 ± 30.2 (0.4 [-10.7-1.8]) and LBM (1.0 ± 2.5 (0.4 [-0.5-2.6]). Self-reported outcomes revealed reductions in pain, fatigue and improvement in appetite. Median survival was 7.6 (IQR 4.4-11.5) months, stratification based on prior anti-EGFR therapy revealed a median survival of 9.4 months (IQR 7.6-12.5) for those pretreated (N = 10) versus a survival of 4.8 months (IQR 4.3-5.7) for those without (N = 6, logrank p = 0.187). CONCLUSION: Xilonix was well tolerated, with gains in LBM and improvement in symptoms suggesting a clinically important response. Although not statistically significant, the survival outcomes observed for patients with and without prior anti-EGFR therapy raises intriguing questions about the potential synergy of IL-1α blockade and anti-EGFR therapy. Further study for this agent in NSCLC is warranted.

Multiple gene aberrations and breast cancer: lessons from super-responders.

BACKGROUND: The presence of multiple molecular aberrations in patients with breast cancer may correlate with worse outcomes. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We performed in-depth molecular analysis of patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, hormone therapy-refractory breast cancer, who achieved partial or complete responses when treated with anastrozole and everolimus. Tumors were analyzed using a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) assay in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments laboratory. Genomic libraries were captured for 3,230 exons in 182 cancer-related genes plus 37 introns from 14 genes often rearranged in cancer and sequenced to high coverage. Patients received anastrozole (1 g PO daily) and everolimus (5 or 10 mg PO daily). Thirty-two patients with breast cancer were treated on study and 5 (16 %) achieved a partial or complete response. Primary breast tissue was available for NGS testing in three of the responders (partial response with progression free survival of 11 and 14 months, respectively; complete response with progression free survival of 9+ months). The following molecular aberrations were observed: PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry, CCDN1 and FGFR1 amplifications, and PRKDC re-arrangement (NGS) (patient #1); PIK3CA and PIK3R1 mutations, and CCDN1, FGFR1, MYC amplifications (patient #2); TP53 mutation, CCNE1, IRS2 and MCL1 amplifications (patient #3). Some (but not all) of these aberrations converge on the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, perhaps accounting for response. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer can achieve significant responses on a combination of anastrozole and everolimus, even in the presence of multiple molecular aberrations. Further study of next generation sequencing-profiled tumors for convergence and resistance pathways is warranted.

MABp1, a first-in-class true human antibody targeting interleukin-1α in refractory cancers: an open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is an important feature of the malignant phenotype and promotes angiogenesis, tumour invasiveness, metastases, and cachexia. We used a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody (MABp1) cloned from a human being to target interleukin-1α, a mediator of chronic inflammation. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of MABp1 for interleukin-1α blockade in a refractory cancer population. METHODS: We did an open-label, dose-escalation, and phase 1 study of MABp1 in adults with metastatic cancer at the MD Anderson Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy (Houston, TX, USA). We used a standard 3+3 design to identify the maximum tolerated dose. Patients received MABp1 intravenously once every 3 weeks through four dose levels: 0.25 mg/kg, 0.75 mg/kg, 1.25 mg/kg, and 3.75 mg/kg. After the dose-escalation phase, a second dosing arm was started with dosing every 2 weeks at the maximum tolerated dose. The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, characterisation of the pharmacokinetic profile, and identification of the recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary endpoints included pharmacodynamic effects and antitumour activity. All patients who received at least one dose of MABp1 were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01021072. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2010, and July 30, 2012, 52 patients with metastatic cancer (18 tumour types) received anti-interleukin-1α monotherapy in dose-escalation and expansion groups. MABp1 was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities or immunogenicity. Thus, the recommended phase 2 dose was concluded to be 3.75 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetic data were consistent at all dose levels and showed no evidence of accumulation or increased clearance of MABp1 at increasing doses. For 42 assessable patients, median plasma interleukin-6 concentrations had decreased from baseline to week 8 by a median of 2.7 pg/mL (IQR -12.6 to 3.0; p=0.08). Of the 34 patients restaged, one patient had a partial response and ten had stable disease. 30 patients were assessable for change in lean body mass, which increased by a mean of 1.02 kg (SD 2.24; p=0.02) between baseline and week 8. The most common adverse events possibly related to the study drug were proteinuria (n=11; 21%), nausea (7; 13%), and fatigue (7; 13%). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events (regardless of relation to treatment) were fatigue (3; 6%), dyspnoea (2; 4%), and headache (2; 4%). Two patients (4%) had grade 5 events (death due to disease progression), which were unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: MABp1 was well tolerated, no dose-limiting toxicities were experienced in this study, and disease control was observed. Further study of MABp1 anti-interleukin-1α antibody therapy for advanced stage cancer is warranted.

Dual inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway: a phase 1 trial evaluating bevacizumab and AZD2171 (cediranib) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to evaluate the safety and biological activity of dual inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway with combined bevacizumab and cediranib (a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor). METHODS: This was a 3 + 3 dose escalation study in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cediranib was given orally daily for 21 days and bevacizumab intravenously every 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetics and correlates (nitric oxide synthase, nitrate oxide, and circulating tumor cells) were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3-4; graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events [version 3.0]) observed included 1 patient with chest pain, 1 patient with fatigue, 2 patients with thrombocytopenia, 3 patients with hypertension (1 with intracranial hemorrhage), and 1 patient with grade 5 hemoptysis. Moreover, 2 patients presented with grade 3 intracranial bleeding beyond the DLT window. Dose level 2 (cediranib at a dose of 20 mg/day and bevacizumab at a dose of 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); 17 patients were treated at dose level 2 with 1 DLT and no intracranial bleeding or severe hypertension reported. Pharmacokinetics of cediranib at dose level 3 demonstrated a 46% to 77% increase in area under the curve (0-24 hours) on cycle 1 day 1 compared with historical controls. Four patients attained partial remissions: inflammatory breast cancer (-54%), basal cell carcinoma (-33%), alveolar soft part sarcoma (-33%), and synovial sarcoma (-32%). Patients with a lower circulating tumor cell count (< 30) at the predose period had a longer time to tumor progression (P = .024, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib at a dose of 20 mg/day and bevacizumab at a dose of 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks was found to be the RP2D. Activity in several tumor types was noted. Central nervous system bleeding and severe hypertension were observed at doses above the RP2D.

Phase I dose-escalating study of TAS-106 in combination with carboplatin in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: TAS-106 was designed to inhibit RNA synthesis by blocking RNA polymerases I, II, and III. METHODS: This was a single-center, open-label, phase I study to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and biologic effects of the combination of TAS-106 and carboplatin, following a standard 3 + 3 design. This phase I trial was comprised of a regimen of a 60-min IV infusion of carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle followed by a 24-h infusion of TAS-106, also on day 1 of each cycle. RESULTS: 39 patients were treated (21 male, 18 female, median age 62 years, range 21-80 years). Median number of prior therapies was 4. Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was 3 mg/m(2) TAS-106 with AU 4 carboplatin. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, with and without growth factor support. While no patients achieved a complete or partial response, four patients had stable disease lasting ≥4 months, including one patient each with ovarian, non-small cell lung, basal cell and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the combination of TAS-106 and carboplatin was well-tolerated, and further studies in non-small cell lung and ovarian cancer are warranted to assess the efficacy of this drug combination.

Evaluation of a novel blood pressure scoring method and its association with clinical response in cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to establish a novel blood pressure (BP) scoring method and to correlate it with clinical response in advanced cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for 368 patients from 23 clinical trials that included at least one anti-VEGF agent. We determined BP scores using the traditional Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 and our novel method that considers both BP readings and number of anti-hypertensive medications the patient received. BP scores were categorized at baseline and four months. Logistic regression analysis correlated elevated scores with clinical response. Agreement between the CTCAE and the new method was assessed. RESULTS: Under the new BP scoring method, partial response rates were 20 % in patients with an elevated score at four months versus 6 % in patients without elevated score (P < 0.001). When adjusted for tumor type, age, sex, history of anti-VEGF treatment, and number of anti-VEGF treatments, elevated BP under the new scoring method had an odds ratio of 3.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 8.2; P < 0.001). The kappa statistic for agreement between the CTCAE and new scoring methods was 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.47, 0.67; P < 0.001), indicating significant concordance. CONCLUSION: Using the novel scoring method, an increase in BP scores was a marker for favorable clinical response in patients who received anti-VEGF treatment. This new method ultimately provides information with regard to clinical tumor response over and above that provided by the CTCAE scoring method.

Barriers to study enrollment in patients with advanced cancer referred to a phase I clinical trials unit.

UNLABELLED: We conducted this retrospective study to identify reasons that patients referred to a phase I clinical trial failed to enroll or delayed enrollment onto the trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcome analyses were conducted independently on data collected from electronic medical records of two sets of consecutive patients referred to a phase I clinical trial facility at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Data from the first set of 300 patients were used to determine relevant variables affecting enrollment; data from the second set of 957 patients were then analyzed for these variables. RESULTS: Results from the two sets of patients were similar. Approximately 55% of patients were enrolled in a phase I trial. Patients referred from within MD Anderson were more likely to be enrolled than patients seen originally outside the institution (p = .006); black patients were more likely than white patients to enroll (69% vs. 43%; p = .04). The median interval from the initial visit to initiation of treatments was 19 days. Major reasons for failure to enroll included failure to return to the clinic (36%), opting for treatment in another clinic (17%), hospice referral (11%), early death (10%), and lack of financial clearance (5%). Treatment was delayed for three weeks or more in 250 patients; in 85 patients (34%), the delay was caused by financial and insurance issues. CONCLUSION: Failure to return to the clinic, pursuit of other therapy, and rapid deterioration were the major reasons for failure to enroll; lengthy financial clearance was the most common reason for delayed enrollment onto a phase I trial.

A phase 1 study of gemcitabine combined with dasatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Dasatinib has been shown preclinically to overcome resistance to gemcitabine. We evaluated the safety and biological activity of the combination of dasatinib and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a phase 1 study (3 + 3 design), patients received daily dasatinib with weekly gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (except cycle 1 which was 8 weeks). Dose escalation began with dasatinib 70 mg orally (PO) daily and gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) weekly. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (15 men; median age = 55 years; median number of prior systemic treatments = 4) were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue and dehydration, with the maximum tolerated dose being dasatinib 100 mg PO qd and gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) IV weekly. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia (21.5 %), thrombocytopenia (26.2 %), leukopenia (26.2 %), and pleural effusion (10.7 %). Six of 47 patients attained stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months or partial response including 2 of 8 patients with pancreatic cancer (SD ≥ 6 months; both gemcitabine-refractory), 2 of 3 patients with thymoma (SD for 9.8 and 15 months), 1 of 1 patient with anal squamous cancer (SD 15 months) and 1 of 5 patients with inflammatory breast cancer. No significant changes in circulating tumor cells or interleukin-8 levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The combination was well tolerated at doses of dasatinib 100 mg PO daily and gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) IV weekly. SD ≥ 6 months/ PR was observed in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer, thymoma, anal cancer and inflammatory breast cancer.

Methylation and histone deacetylase inhibition in combination with platinum treatment in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: The combination of DNA methylation inhibitors and histone deacetylase inhibitors is synergistic in gene expression activation and may overcome platinum resistance. Sequential treatment with azacitidine and valproic acid (VPA) in combination with carboplatin may overcome resistance to platinum-based therapy, and we conducted a phase I trial to assess safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and clinical correlates. Experimental Design Patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy were eligible. In cohorts of escalating doses, patients received azacitidine for 5 days from days 1 to 5, VPA for 7 days from days 5 to 11, and carboplatin starting in the second cycle on days 3 and 10. Clinical correlates included evaluation of epigenetic changes, methylation patterns, and histone acetylation levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were treated. The MTD was 75 mg/m(2) azacitidine, 20 mg/kg VPA, and AUC 3.0 carboplatin. Minor responses or stable disease lasting ≥ 4 months were achieved by six patients (18.8 %), including three with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. The most common adverse events grade ≥ 3 were fatigue (81 %) and neutropenia (69 %). Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in six patients (18.8 %), including four patients with grade 3 altered mental status. Death receptor 4 (DR4) methylation was shown to decrease in a subset of patients, but there was no relationship with tumor response or number of cycles received. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of azacitidine, VPA, and carboplatin demonstrates decreased DR4 methylation and modest evidence of antitumor activity in patients with heavily treated advanced malignancies.

Prevalence of complementary medicine use in a phase 1 clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: A key end point of early cancer clinical trials is the assessment of toxicities and their possible association with new experimental drugs. Therefore, the concurrent use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with advanced malignancies seen in a dedicated phase 1 clinic was evaluated. METHODS: An investigator-designed survey was anonymously completed by patients seen in the phase 1 clinic. Pharmacologic CAM included any oral, topical, or intravenous agent, including vitamins, dietary supplements, and herbal products. Nonpharmacologic CAM included prayer, meditation, hypnosis, massage, and acupuncture. RESULTS: Of the 404 patients approached about completing the CAM survey, 394 (98%) agreed to respond, and 309 (78%) surveys were returned. Of those 309 patients, 162 (52%) used 1 or more CAM. Of the 162 CAM users, 77% utilized pharmacologic CAM, 71% used nonpharmacologic CAM, and 48% used both modalities. The most frequent CAM used were vitamins (70%), prayer (57%), and herbal products (26%). CAM utilization was not significantly associated with race, age, level of education, employment, or income level but was used more by women than men (P < .01). There was no statistically significant association between the use of CAM and quality of life as perceived by patients. Of the CAM users, 43% of patients had been using CAM for >5 years. Only 5% reported having side effects from using CAM, whereas 23% did not fully disclose their CAM use to their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: CAM usage is common in patients with advanced malignancies seen in a phase 1 clinic.

Phase I Study of Everolimus, Letrozole, and Trastuzumab in Patients with Hormone Receptor-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer or Other Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Doublets of everolimus with letrozole or trastuzumab have demonstrated activity against HER2-positive breast cancer, suggesting that the triple combination can have synergistic anticancer activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This first-in-human dose-escalation study (NCT02152943) enrolled patients with hormone receptor- positive, HER2-positive (defined by amplification, overexpression, or mutation) treatment-refractory advanced cancers to receive escalating doses (3+3 design) of daily oral letrozole (days 1-21), daily oral everolimus (days 1-21), and intravenous trastuzumab (day 1) every 21 days to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and MTD or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). RESULTS: A total of 32 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive (amplification, n = 27; overexpression, n = 1; and mutation, n = 4) advanced breast cancer (n = 26) or other cancers (n = 6) were enrolled. The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events included hyperglycemia (n = 4), anemia (n = 3), thrombocytopenia (n = 2), and mucositis (n = 2). DLTs included grade 3 mucositis and grade 4 neutropenia, and trastuzumab given as an 8 mg/kg loading dose on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a 6 mg/kg maintenance dose on day 1 of subsequent cycles plus 10 mg everolimus daily and 2.5 mg letrozole daily every 21 days was declared as RP2D. Five patients with breast cancer (four with HER2 amplification and one with HER2 mutation) had partial responses. HER2 amplification in circulating cell-free DNA at baseline was associated with shorter progression-free and overall survival durations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus, letrozole, and trastuzumab have a favorable safety profile and elicit encouraging signals of anticancer activity in patients with heavily pretreated hormone receptor- and HER2-positive advanced cancers.

Safety and Efficacy of Vorinostat Plus Sirolimus or Everolimus in Patients with Relapsed Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical and early clinical data suggested that combining histone deacetylase (HDAC) and mTOR inhibitors can synergistically inhibit Hodgkin lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01087554) with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat and the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus (V+S), a patient with Hodgkin lymphoma refractory to nine prior therapies demonstrated a partial response (PR) lasting for 18.5 months, which promoted additional enrollment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma as well as exploration of an alternative combination of vorinostat and mTOR inhibitor everolimus (V+E). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients with refractory Hodgkin lymphoma received V+S (n = 22) or V+E (n = 18). Patients received a median of five prior therapies, including brentuximab (n = 39), autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 26), and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (n = 12). The most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia in 55% and 67% of patients treated with V+S and V+E, respectively. Complete response was reported in 6 (27%) patients treated with V+S and 2 (11%) patients treated with V+E, and PR was reported in 6 patients (27%) treated with V+S and 4 (22%) patients treated with V+E (objective response rate of 55% and 33%, respectively). In summary, combined HDAC and mTOR inhibition had encouraging activity in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and warrants further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Combined HDAC and mTOR inhibition has salutary activity in patients with relapsed refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and warrants further investigation.

Long-term overall survival and prognostic score predicting survival: the IMPACT study in precision medicine.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, we initiated IMPACT, a precision medicine program for patients referred for participation in early-phase clinical trials. We assessed the correlation of factors, including genomically matched therapy, with overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed molecular profiling (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments) (genes ≤ 182) for patients with lethal/refractory advanced cancers referred to the Phase 1 Clinical Trials Program. Matched therapy, if available, was selected on the basis of genomics. Clinical trials varied over time and included investigational drugs against various targets (single agents or combinations). Patients were followed up for up to 10 years. RESULTS: Of 3487 patients who underwent tumor molecular profiling, 1307 (37.5%) had ≥ 1 alteration and received therapy (matched, 711; unmatched, 596; median age, 57 years; 39% men). Most common tumors were gastrointestinal, gynecologic, breast, melanoma, and lung. Objective response rates were: matched 16.4%, unmatched 5.4% (p < .0001); objective response plus stable disease ≥ 6 months rates were: matched 35.3% and unmatched 20.3%, (p < .001). Respective median progression-free survival: 4.0 and 2.8 months (p < .0001); OS, 9.3 and 7.3 months; 3-year, 15% versus 7%; 10-year, 6% vs. 1% (p < .0001). Independent factors associated with shorter OS (multivariate analysis) were performance status > 1 (p < .001), liver metastases (p < .001), lactate dehydrogenase levels > upper limit of normal (p < .001), PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway alterations (p < .001), and non-matched therapy (p < .001). The five independent factors predicting shorter OS were used to design a prognostic score. CONCLUSIONS: Matched targeted therapy was an independent factor predicting longer OS. A score to predict an individual patient's risk of death is proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00851032, date of registration February 25, 2009.

Estimated Cost of Anticancer Therapy Directed by Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in a Single-Center Study.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) detects several classes of genomic alterations across numerous genes simultaneously and can match more patients with genomically targeted therapies than conventional molecular profiling. The current study estimated the costs of anticancer drugs and overall survival (OS) for patients who were treated with matched and unmatched therapy. METHODS: Costs were estimated for patients with complete data (188 of 500 patients) from a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients with diverse refractory cancers who underwent CGP and were treated with matched or unmatched therapy. We assessed mean time to treatment failure (TTF) and mean observed OS. Patient-specific drug and administration costs were imputed for the first regimen after CGP on the basis of drug classes, unit costs, and time on treatment. RESULTS: Patients on matched (n = 122) versus unmatched (n = 66) therapy had longer mean TTF (+1.5 months) and observed OS (+2.4 months) and higher drug costs (+$38,065; all P < .01). Increased drug costs were largely attributable to the longer duration of therapy associated with extended TTF (66.3%) rather than higher monthly drug costs (33.7%). Incremental increases in TTF (+1.9 months v +1.2 months) and observed OS (+2.5 months v +2.1 months) between matched and unmatched therapies were larger for those who underwent CGP in earlier- versus later-line therapy. Incremental increases in drug costs between matched and unmatched therapies were lower for earlier- compared with later-line therapy (+$27,000 v +$43,000, respectively). CONCLUSION: Matched therapy was associated with longer TTF, increased OS, and manageable incremental cost increases compared with unmatched therapy. Most of these increased costs were a result of the longer duration of therapy rather than higher monthly drug costs. The benefits of matching were numerically greater in earlier versus later lines of therapy, which is consistent with the value of early use of CGP.